Luther and the Apocrypha

Since it has been by now established that Luther's German translation of the Bible contained all of the deuterocanical works, and Jerome's (first) translation of the Vulgate did not, in terms of a shorter canon, it would appear that even Luther did not bring himself to go as far along the path of a shorter canon as did Jerome.

However, even when it is accepted that Luther's commentary did establish a shorter canon (while leaving the longer scripture intact), it still has not been established that Luther was merely following the same tradition as Jerome.

It boils down to a question of intent. To say that Luther was following in the tradition of Jerome (to the satisfaction of anyone in the Roman Catholic tradition, anyway ), it would first have to be established that either:

a) Jerome's rejection of the longer canon was based upon the the idea that he objected to some of the Catholic dogma derived from , or at least supported by the longer canon, or alternatively;

b) that Luther's rejection of the apocrpypha was not motivated by a corresponding rejection of any aforementioned Catholic dogma.

Outside of the apoocryphal books, it can be fairly safe to state that Luther's primary reason for rejecting the letter of James as canon was precisely due to the fact that it was being used to support Catholic doctrines concerning faith and works.

Whether or not he had similar intent in regards to the deuterocanicals has not yet been established.
As for jerome, his committment to Catholic irthodxy has so far been unquestioned by anybody.

solomon said:

Since it has been by now established that Luther's German translation of the Bible contained all of the deuterocanical works, and Jerome's (first) translation of the Vulgate did not, in terms of a shorter canon, it would appear that even Luther did not bring himself to go as far along the path of a shorter canon as did Jerome.

Click to expand...

What was retained by Luther was the distinction within the canon. The editors of Luther’s Works explain, “In keeping with early Christian tradition, Luther also included the Apocrypha of the Old Testament. Sorting them out of the canonical books, he appended them at the end of the Old Testament with the caption, ‘These books are not held equal to the Scriptures, but are useful and good to read."


William Webster has pointed out,


"The overall practice of the Western Church with respect to the canon from the time of Jerome (early fifth century) until the Reformation was to follow the judgment of Jerome. The Apocryphal books were accorded a deuterocanonical status, but were not regarded as canonical in the strict sense. That is, they were not accepted as authoritative for the establishing of doctrine but were used for the purpose of edification. Thus, the Church retained the distinctions established by Jerome, Rufinus and Athanasius of ecclesiastical and canonical books."

Source: http://www.christiantruth.com/Apocrypha3.html

solomon said:

However, even when it is accepted that Luther's commentary did establish a shorter canon (while leaving the longer scripture intact), it still has not been established that Luther was merely following the same tradition as Jerome.

Click to expand...

Understanding Luther on the canon demands approaching him from two perspectives:


1. Luther’s perspective on the canon as a sixteenth century Biblical theologian
2. Luther’s personal criterion of canonicity expressed in his theology

Any attempt to understand Luther’s view of the canon that neglects either of these is prone to distortion and caricature. Even the Catholic Encyclopedia understands these two aspects: they note that Luther based his canon opinion on "dogmatic reasons and the judgment of antiquity." Of course, "dogmatic reasons" is a less kinder way of expressing what I have said in #2.

solomon said:

Outside of the apoocryphal books, it can be fairly safe to state that Luther's primary reason for rejecting the letter of James as canon was precisely due to the fact that it was being used to support Catholic doctrines concerning faith and works.

Click to expand...

This is a perfect example of exactly what I mean. If you want to really understand Luther's view of the canon, you have to pay close attention to both factors I pointed out above.

Regards,
James Swan

With more and more Christians today reverting back to considering resurrection in a wholly spiritualized way, it may be a useful reminder to recall how strongly the idea of bodily resurrection comes through in the Apocryphal works.

The first scriptural evidence for resurrection as Christians came to understand it, seems to be found in the Book of Daniel. This book is generally considered to have been written during the time of a few centuries before the common era, when Greeks were oppressing the Jews and desecrating their Temple. However, because not all Jews nor Christians were not really cognizant that time period which produced Daniel was of the same era as the disputed works of deuterocanicals, Daniel was to be included among the earlier Old Testament books of all Christians and Jews. (As in deciding upon NT canon for Christians, the earlier age of texts helped give them more legitimacy for Jewish canon as well).

Daniel Chapter 12
1 "At that time there shall arise Michael, the great prince, guardian of your people; It shall be a time unsurpassed in distress since nations began until that time. At that time your people shall escape, everyone who is found written in the book.

2 Many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake; some shall live forever, others shall be an everlasting horror and disgrace.



However, the clearest evidence for bodily resurrection comes not from any of the books which we now share in common with Jews, but with the books arising along with Daniel in that intertestament period.

Consider for example, the apocryphal tale of the seven brothers and the ideas that motivated them to accept torturous deaths:

2 Macabees 7:
1 At the point of death he said: "You accursed fiend, you are depriving us of this present life, but the King of the world will raise us up to live again forever. It is for his laws that we are dying."
10
After him the third suffered their cruel sport. He put out his tongue at once when told to do so, and bravely held out his hands,
11
as he spoke these noble words: "It was from Heaven that I received these; for the sake of his laws I disdain them; from him I hope to receive them again."
12
Even the king and his attendants marveled at the young man's courage, because he regarded his sufferings as nothing.
13
After he had died, they tortured and maltreated the fourth brother in the same way.
14
When he was near death, he said, "It is my choice to die at the hands of men with the God-given hope of being restored to life by him; but for you, there will be no resurrection to life."
....

23
Therefore, since it is the Creator of the universe who shapes each man's beginning, as he brings about the origin of everything, he, in his mercy, will give you back both breath and life, because you now disregard yourselves for the sake of his law." Martyrdom of Mother and Sons
24

With this next passage from Second Maccabees, there can be little doubt that a full bodily ressurrection is what is meant:

2 Macc: 14

3 A certain Razis, one of the elders of Jerusalem, was denounced to Nicanor as a patriot. A man highly regarded, he was called a father of the Jews because of his love for them.
38
In the early days of the revolt, he had been convicted of Judaism, and had risked body and life in his ardent zeal for it.
39
Nicanor, to show his detestation of the Jews, sent more than five hundred soldiers to arrest him.
40
He thought that by arresting such a man he would deal the Jews a hard blow.
41
But when these troops, on the point of capturing the tower, were forcing the outer gate and calling for fire to set the door ablaze, Razis, now caught on all sides, turned his sword against himself,
42
preferring to die nobly rather than fall into the hands of vile men and suffer outrages unworthy of his noble birth.
43
In the excitement of the struggle he failed to strike exactly. So while the troops rushed in through the doors, he gallantly ran up to the top of the wall and with manly courage threw himself down into the crowd.
44
But as they quickly drew back and left an opening, he fell into the middle of the empty space.
45
Still breathing, and inflamed with anger, he got up and ran through the crowd, with blood gushing from his frightful wounds.
46
Then, standing on a steep rock, as he lost the last of his blood, he tore out his entrails and flung them with both hands into the crowd, calling upon the Lord of life and of spirit to give these back to him again. Such was the manner of his death.



With sixteenth century church politics and theology now finally beginning to fade, and with Luther's words in mind that such books are to be considered 'good and useful' reading, perhaps with these passages we are reminded of what may have motivated him to say so.

The poverty of ideas about the fullness of eternal life in which the Tree of Life in the center of the Garden is as ignored by the earlier prophets as it was by Adam and Eve; and this contrasts sharply with the glory of gospels of the New Covenant where Jesus, the first Fruit of that Tree planted at Golgotha, comes into full focus.

In this then, we can at least all agree, Lutheran and Catholic alike. The value of the deuterocanicals lies in the way that they historically had aided in preparing a way for the resurrection of Lord to be beleived in. Such stories as these helped formulate that mind-set amidst the people of the pre-Christian Helllenic world in which the resurrection of Jesus could be both understood and appreciated.

However we regard the value of these books today, whether or not they are considered to be canonical , whether they are integrated into our Bibles, or separated, or completely excluded- all this has become moot. With 2000 years of Christianity behind us, the very success of Christianity is the testimony to the success that these books have had in fostering an atmosphere which allowed the gospel of resurrection to be understood by those who came after.